Did Jesus contradict the OT?

[handy]

I have to admit that I generally love to quote the scriptures because I believe that there is both authority and power in them. I certainly, when I was searching out these truths for myself 30+ years ago) came face to face with the power and authority of the word of God.

But, not everyone experiences the Bible that way. If one rejects the power and authority of the word, there is no point in quoting a lot of it. I don't believe that makes it impossible for a searcher to come to saving grace. The Spirit who inspires the word is the same Spirit who regenerates hearts.

guitarman, I believe you when you say that you don't accept the Bible as God's very personal and totally correct communication to us. All I'm asking, for the sake of discussion, is that you accept that Christians do believe this about the bible, and it is out of the basis of this belief that we can reconcile the two testaments.

As Mark stated (and welcome to the discussion Mark!) the tone of each testament is different because of Jesus. Basically the early church were, for the most part, Jewish people who came to believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. However, Jesus wasn't the Messiah that most were expecting. So much that was written in the New Testament was to explain anew the whole reason for a Messiah, and why the Messiah, when He came wasn't an earthly king as was expected but Someone far more. It called for those who grew up hearing and believing the Scriptures to look at the Scriptures in a totally different way. I'm sure you know this already, I'm just laying some kind of a foundation for discussion. Because of the new way of interpreting the Scriptures and the new way that the early Christians understood the Scriptures, what seems very contradictory can then become reconciled. Keep in mind that the "new" way wasn't new to God, nor were the ancient writings rewritten just to ease new interpretations. God knew all along what He meant when He inspired those who wrote things down. But, in the OT, folks didn't have the Spirit the way we do since Pentecost. Given that Spirit filled Christians cannot even come to grips with a lot of what the Bible teaches (just check out the rest of the Apologetics and Theology threads) it's no wonder that the earlier children of God were just as confused as to what God meant when He said what He said and therefore taught misconceptions regarding God's prophecies as facts. This is why Jesus frowned upon the "traditions of men".

One might ask why would God bother saying anything at all then, if we aren't going to understand Him. Well, because eventually we will. Within the first few months of Pentecost, thousands of folks came to understanding, and so shall we. Also, and this is important, whether we understand it or not, God is wise to give us His word. His word is what defines what is His will and His workings, as opposed to random events. Prophesy, and that is what the Scriptures are, separates the intents and purposes of God from the various philosophies and thought processes of the human mind. This is true, whether one accepts it or not. If you're not getting what I'm trying to explain here, say so and I'll try to explain it better.

We can read through the OT and be disgusted, amazed, enlightened or just plain turned off, depending upon our own mind-set. We then can have that touch from the Spirit. After that, we can go back and read the OT again, with something that begins to approach understanding. This is why I think you see the overall tone of God in the OT as being judgmental, wrathful even disturbing, whereas I see God in the OT as being redeeming, loving, and patient. And, please, please understand that I'm not trying to come off as spiritually superior to you. I would be blind as a bat regarding scriptural truths if it weren't for the Spirit and even with the Spirit, I probably only have about a .200 batting average as to being able to rightly divide the truth.

 

[guitarman]

Mark62 wrote:

Just started reading this discussion. Very interesting and I agree, quoting lots and lots of verses isnt going to do much for you in this whole area. In fact I found it really annoying too.

Thanks. Trying to convince someone who doesn't believe the bible is the word of god by throwing a bunch of scripture in their face probably won't work too well.

I was 29 when I became a Christian and have had similar questions as a non-Christian myself, one being the historical accuracy of the NT for example. To be honest, in hindsight a lot of those questions I had were ways of putting off the prickly problem of my own sin and rebellion against God. As Christians we receive the Holy Spirrit and that helps in understanding more about God and ultimately the Bible.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but that sounds like what others have told me before: that I can't really understand the bible without faith. But my question is, how can I have faith without understanding the bible, at least some of it? It seems circular to me. That argument also brings up several problems, the biggest of which is: If I have to have faith that the bible is true, and my lack of faith is stopping me from understanding the bible, then how can you reject other religions? If you don't have faith that wicca or buddhism or sikhism might be true, then how can you truly understand those religions enough to say that they aren't true and that christianity is? It seems that a person is not qualified to reject the Bible without fully understanding it, but that person can never understand the Bible unless he/she is already a Christian. And how do you become a Christian in order to be able to understand the Bible? By reading and understanding the Bible, of course! It makes my head spin.

Handy wrote:

guitarman, I believe you when you say that you don't accept the Bible as God's very personal and totally correct communication to us. All I'm asking, for the sake of discussion, is that you accept that Christians do believe this about the bible, and it is out of the basis of this belief that we can reconcile the two testaments.

No problem.

I understand that jesus came to really shake things up, and he did. That's what I'm getting at. It seems like he shook things up so much that, to many people, the old and new testaments seem like they were written about different gods. I know that jesus threatened god's wrath as much as he preached about love and peace, but he never commanded his followers to slaughter entire peoples and keep the virgin daughters. Jesus never said thou must not suffer a witch to live or to stone homesexuals, even if he thought they were still sins. This is my main point. Jesus might have threatened god's wrath, but he didn't follow through like god in the OT did. Jesus didn't kill all the first-born sons of his enemies or torment them with plagues, or flood the entire world(which he just created) and kill almost every living thing. I just can't wrap my head around believing that these two entities are the same god, especially one that loves us.

 

[wavy]

I'm still waiting on an answer to my slavery question.

Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[handy]

It was relative to the culture of the South in the 1800's to view as slavery as right, and we can all agree that slavery is not right. Mankind is so far outside of God's will, that God gave us the Law to help us understand His holy standards, and how woefully inadequate we are to even understand them, much less live up to them

So God sanctioned slavery in the Hebrew bible as a 'holy standard' to help us understand that slavery is wrong?


Thanks,
E.L.B.

I'm still waiting on an answer to my slavery question.

Thanks,
E.L.B.

Eric,
Nope! :D

Guitarman,

I understand that jesus came to really shake things up, and he did. That's what I'm getting at. It seems like he shook things up so much that, to many people, the old and new testaments seem like they were written about different gods. I know that jesus threatened god's wrath as much as he preached about love and peace, but he never commanded his followers to slaughter entire peoples and keep the virgin daughters. Jesus never said thou must not suffer a witch to live or to stone homesexuals, even if he thought they were still sins. This is my main point. Jesus might have threatened god's wrath, but he didn't follow through like god in the OT did. Jesus didn't kill all the first-born sons of his enemies or torment them with plagues, or flood the entire world(which he just created) and kill almost every living thing. I just can't wrap my head around believing that these two entities are the same god, especially one that loves us.

It seems as though we are back kind of where we started from. My offer still stands to study with you the texts we would need to look at to see how it is all reconciled. (It's even possible to reconcile Eric's slavery question in the process as well. ;) ) However, it will take breaking open the bible and actually studying what it says regarding the matter. Not in the sense of throwing a bunch of texts out there, but actually allowing the Scripture to answer the question that you have. Are you game?

 

[wavy]

Eric,
Nope! :D

Then why did he sanction it when he could have set the 'holy standard' of not practicing it in the first place if it isn't right?


Thanks,
Eric

 

[handy]

Eric, if guitarman and you want to enter into a study of how the Jesus and the New Testament is reconciled to the Old Testament, the answer to the slavery question can be dealt with in the study, albeit in a rather general way.

Slavery and the Bible is a subject though that is hard to deal with in generalities, because we have to delve into how slavery in the bible differs greatly from slavery in America, what laws there were about slavery, how slaves were to be released, etc. etc. etc. and above all why God didn't harshly condemn the practice. If you want to discuss slavery and the Bible in-depth, by all means, start a new topic. It's a subject worthy of it's own topic anyway.

However, I don't think I want to try to enter into a in-depth look at slavery and the Bible as well as an in-depth look at how the Old and New Testament are reconciled in Christ all in the same thread. My brain just isn't that big. The topic of this thread is whether or not Jesus contradicted the OT in the sense that the God of the OT seems to be a wrathful and vengeful God and Jesus' message was one of love and forgiveness. This is a topic that is also worthy of study and discussion.

My point in the quote that you have highlighted wasn't to discuss the rightness or wrongness of slavery. It was to point out that as far as people are concerned, there are vast differences of standards as to what is right and what is wrong. I say that gay people shouldn't be married. Paris Hilton would get mad at me for saying so. Osama bin Ladin teaches that Americans are infidels who are rightly killed and destroyed. George Bush begged to differ. Who is to say who is "right" and who is "wrong" in these issues. I believe that God does and that He placed the Law, including how slaves were to be treated, the consequences for mistreatment and under what circumstances they had to be released, as a way to tutor us in His holy standards and how woefully incapable humans are to hold to them. A good case in point would be the twisting of all the commands God gave for the fair treatment of slaves, the punishments for mistreating any slave, when slaves were to be released and what payments they were to receive upon release into the horrors of racist slavery practiced in America.

That's about all the answer on the issue of slavery I think I'll put in this thread. If you truly want to discuss it further, then start a new one.

 

[guitarman]

Handy wrote:

It seems as though we are back kind of where we started from. My offer still stands to study with you the texts we would need to look at to see how it is all reconciled. (It's even possible to reconcile Eric's slavery question in the process as well. ) However, it will take breaking open the bible and actually studying what it says regarding the matter. Not in the sense of throwing a bunch of texts out there, but actually allowing the Scripture to answer the question that you have. Are you game?

Sure. You can start citing specific scriptures now if you want and I'll give you my interpretation of them. The non-believer's interpretation anyway.

 

[handy]

OK. I have to go to work today, but I'll start working on at least an overview of how the Old Testament and the New are reconciled to one another and get it posted sometime this weekend.

 

[Sparkey]

I've enjoyed reading this thread very much. imo, the question raised is both pertinent and timely. How can Christians reconcile the great differences seen between "The God of the Old Agreement" and what Jesus did in the flesh? Here's my two cents: He didn't contradict the Old Testament, he confirmed, sanctioned, ratified, expanded and fulfilled it. I understand that some may say "tl;dr" but hope that this is received in the spirit it is offered.

Did I say that this is a good question? Angels have desired to know these things. Where to start would be my question.

God's Name
The Name "Yahweh" from the old Testament can be translated, "I am who I am". Hebrew names oftentimes are statements about a person's nature and this is certainly and especially true of God. His name can be expanded to be "I am who I am, that which my people need to be". When Moses met with God at the time of the burning bush, he didn't even know what to call God. "Who shall I say sent me, when they ask?"

"The Complaint of Jacob's Children"
We need to consider how our Father interacted with His children initially; we have to understand that they didn't know Him very well. They weren't like Him either - and Moses was asked to take on the task of leading this "stubborn and stiff-necked" people from slavery to the Promised Land. The children of Abraham, Issac and Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel - meaning "God-Fighter who prevailed") were lead directly from out of their slavery. They had just experienced the first PassOver from One who said that He would be their God and they His people. Had just witnessed God's power again as they were delivered through the Red Sea.

After only three days, they complained, "What shall we drink?", bitter waters were made sweet for them (literally) and what did they do in response? Well, it wasn't long (three days) before complained again, this time the whole congregation, "Oh, that we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the pots of meant and when we ate bread to the full!" They went on in the complaint and became accusatory, "For you have brought us out into this wilderness to kill this whole assembly with hunger!" God's response was to rain bread on them (Mana) and I'm pretty sure you know what the stubborn children did - they complained again and were taught a lesson with Quail, yes? They had been given mana and were provided for directly from the hand of God all the way to the border of Canaan but it wasn't enough.

God was trying to teach His children to trust Him. Can we see that they minded earthly things, their "glory" was their shame (things they learned in Egypt) and their god was their belly? God was teaching them about His longsuffering too. They had not yet learned to cry out, "Abba, Father," but they would.

"The Complaint of Moses"
The time in the wilderness was about to end (after 40 years of wandering). They came to a place where there was no water again, and the people had no water to drink. "Give us water, that we may drink," they said. Moses asked why they were contending with him, did they want to tempt God? They complained even more and again took up an accusatory tone, "Why is it that YOU have brought us up out of Egypt? To kill us and our children and our livestock with thirst?" So Moses cried out to the Lord, "What shall I do with this people? They are almost ready to stone me!"

Moses was instructed to stand on the rock in Horeb and strike it and was told that water would come out of the rock. Moses named the place Massah (Tempted) and Meribah (Contention) because they tempted the Lord, saying, "Is the Lord among us or not?"
________________________________________________________

It was after this that the 10 Commandments were given on Mt. Sinai. One can find the Law concerning servants in Exodus 21 and also in Deut. 15:12-18. But the idea was that these people had just exited Egypt after having been there for about 430 years. God was re-introducing Himself to the great, great, great-grandchildren of Abraham and they did not know Him. Seems to me that the first thing they were told was to "Look to me" and "Trust me". Not many heard that very well though.

"Teaching the Children"
The theme of God teaching and working with a stubborn and hard-hearted people continues throughout the Old Testament. He gave them Kings when they demanded it, but that wasn't really the plan - Judges were given to help Moses first. Joshua led them across the Jordan and into the Promised Land. There were many battles including some famous ones like Jericho, and it is clearly seen that "Israel" was being taught the ways of God. We can see in Judges chapter 3 that the Lord left some of the enemies within the land for a reason, "that He might test Israel by them, that is, all who had not known the wars in Canaan (this was only so that the generations of the children of Israel might be taught to know war, at least those who had not formerly known it)."

We can follow the actions of the children of Abraham and notice that God led them into situations primarily to show them who He was. They were His children and He continued to work with them according to their needs.

"I am who I am, what-so-ever it is that my children need me to be."

• Adonai-Yahweh-- The Lord our Sovereign[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• El-Elyon -- The Lord Most High[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• El-Olam -- The Everlasting God[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• El-Shaddai -- The God Who is Sufficient for the Needs of His People[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Elohim -- The Eternal Creator[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Jireh -- The Lord our Provider[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Nissi -- The Lord our Banner[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Ropheka -- The Lord our Healer[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Shalom -- The Lord our Peace[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Tsidkenu -- The Lord our Righteousness[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Mekaddishkem -- The Lord our Sanctifier[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Sabaoth -- The Lord of Hosts[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Shammah -- The Lord is Present[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Rohi -- The Lord our Shepherd[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Hoseenu -- The Lord our Maker[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• Yahweh-Eloheenu -- The Lord our God[/*:m:23yqrsdm]

Yes, He was jealous of them, didn't want them to worship other Gods and yes He was seen to be stern - He made no pretense about it. But He was also Holy, is Holy. Mountains shook at His presence and the children of Israel knew it. God had called all to Him, to the Holy Mountain for the 10 Commandments and also to "commune" with Him - but when they saw that not even birds could fly near to the mountain where He was, their hearts became faint. They chose to remain below while Moses only ascended.

God's holiness (He doesn't even look upon sin) required something. Sin sacrifice. Death. Can we see that the "lambs" that were "perfect and spotless" and offered as sacrifice were prophetically looking forward to Jesus? God instituted many laws that the Jews didn't fully understand at the time. Later we can look back but this 20/20 hindsight wasn't theirs at all.
_______________________________________________

I would just like to ask a general question. I grew up as a christian and the first thing that made me question the validity of the bible and the christian faith was the fact that the OT and NT were so vastly different. In the OT god is judgemental and wrathful and jealous, but in the NT jesus is all love and peace.

The Answer (my 2 cents):
Jesus was the only man without the blinders of sin. He didn't need to justify himself when he searched the Old Testament and is uniquely qualified to "comment" on the nature of our Father in heaven. He did so with his very life, what other "comment" could be better made? The Holy Spirit was poured out without measure (can "new wine be placed in old wineskins?) upon him and at that time, Him alone. He was in full and complete agreement with his Father with every word and every action.

This is the "WHY" of what Jesus said, "No one has seen the Father except the Son."
The life of Christ is our only interpretation of who God actually is.

The question (your question) isn't new but as I said at the beginning it is both pertinent and timely. You might also note that this was the very question asked by the Prophets as the Holy Spirit moved on them.

• The Prophets searched diligently about the grace of God that would come to you (later)[/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• It was revealed that it wasn't "for them" but "unto us" [/*:m:23yqrsdm]
• The "salvation" the Prophets inquired about was also something that angels desired to look into[/*:m:23yqrsdm]

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

The Name of Jesus:
Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshua, meaning Yah, our Savior!
He is called "Immanu-el", God with us.

God sent His son as part of His plan to reveal His nature to His children. Many people object to the "faith" that is required of Christians but to me? There are so many witnesses (the life of Christ himself being one) that believing that God is good, that He loves mercy and justice is merely an obvious conclusion.

Saul of Tarsus was a learned Pharisee and before he met Jesus even he didn't understand who God was. "Why do you persecute me?" This man's life was changed dramatically. Do you know what I'm talking about? Saul became the apostle Paul - good reading and yet another testimony that Man can not come to know God except by the revelation of the Living Christ.

He spoke of himself in his letter to the Philippians:

For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.

The third chapter concludes with these words, a warning and a promise:

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Hope this helps, apologies to my sis, handy for butting in (pardon the length too pls); I too look forward to her next post.
~Sparrow

 

[guitarman]

Sparrowhawke's post was pretty long, I'll respond to it later. Meanwhile, I thought I would point out some of the things god did in the OT that turned me off to him. Let me know what you think.

(8) The Bible contains a perfect morality, and no ethical defects.

According to premise (8) of the argument, the Bible contains a perfect morality and no ethical defects. But that claim seems incompatible with the fact that God is described in the Bible as killing people for no good reason. We have already mentioned the many children killed in the Great Flood, in Sodom and Gomorrah, and in the ten plagues on Egypt (especially the last). Here are some additional examples of people whom God killed:

1. A man who refused to impregnate his brother's widow (Ge 38:7-10).

2. Two men who offered God incense that he had not authorized (Le 10:1-2).

3. A group of about 300 people who opposed Moses politically (Nu 16:1-35).

4. Another group of 14,700 who sympathized with the first group (Nu 16:49).

5. More people who complained about the food and other matters (Nu 21:4-6).

6. 24,000 more because of some who worshiped Baal (Nu 25:3,9).

7. The Amorites who besieged Gibeon (Jos 10:10-11).

8. Seventy men who looked into a box (1Sa 6:19).

9. Another man who, with good intention, touched the box (2Sa 6:6-7).

10. A man who refused to use his weapon against another man (1Ki 20:35-36).

11. Forty-two children who called Elisha "baldy" (2Ki 2:23-24).

12. 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2Ki 19:35).

God also killed all of Pharaoh's horsemen in the Red Sea (Ex 14:26-28). He could instead have simply made their horses lame, which would have been far more effective than removing the wheels from the chariots so that the horses had to drag the chariots slowly along the ground (Ex 14:25). That would have also spared the horsemen.

In addition to killing people directly, God also ordered several people killed (despite his commandment not to kill). Here are some examples of people who died by God's order (and in some cases with God's help):

1. Three thousand of the Levites' brothers, friends, and neighbors, who had become unruly (Exodus 32:27-28).

2. All the men, women, and children in all seven of the tribes who were the Israelites' neighbors (Dt 2:34, 3:6, 7:1-2,16, 20:16-17). [Some Biblical verses imply that the Israelites numbered 2-3 million, which would make the total population of their neighbors more than 14 million. What God was here ordering, then, if we could go by those verses, was a kind of Holocaust.]

3. All the men, women, and children of the cities of Jericho, Ai, and dozens more cities and towns (Jos 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:26-42, 11:10-23, 21:44).

4. All the Amalekites, including children, and even animals (1Sa 15:3,18), [where Saul was severely punished for sparing some of them].

5. All the members of the house of Ahab and ministers of Baal within Israel, the latter accomplished through deception (2Ki 10:11-25), though approved by God (10:30).

6. All the citizens of Jerusalem, including children, who did not grieve and lament over sins committed in it (Eze 9:4-6).

It seems quite unethical for God to order the execution of so many people, whatever their offense might have been, especially in the case of the children, who were presumably innocent.

Closely related to the above is the extravagant use of capital punishment among God's chosen people. God ordered people put to death for such minor offenses as the following:

1. Consulting a witch (Le 20:6; Dt 18:11).

2. Blasphemy or merely having a different religion (Ex 22:20; Le 24:10-23; Dt 13:1-15, 17:2-5, 18:20; Jos 23:7,16; 1Ki 18:40).

3. Gathering sticks or kindling a fire on the Sabbath (Ex 31:14-15, 35:2-3; Nu 15:32-36).

4. Eating the wrong food (Ex 12:15,19; Le 3:16-17, 7:22,25-27, 17:10-16).

5. Being a disrespectful or disobedient child (Le 20:9; Dt 21:18-21).

It seems unethical to have laws that harsh. The laws of the ancient Israelites are hardly the model of morality that advocates of Dominion Theology (or Reconstructionism) make them out to be. It would have been impressive if the Bible had gone against the prevailing cultural norms and had forbidden slavery and the oppression of women. But it did not do that. The Bible condones slavery. [21] It also contains many rules that are discriminatory against women. [22] It is hard to find anything in the Bible that stands out as ethically noble from our point of view today.

In addition, according to the Bible, God also deceived people and caused evil. Some examples of that are the following:

1. He created communication problems between people (Gen, 11:7-9).

2. He sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and certain citizens for the purpose of vengeance (Judges 9:23-24).

3. He sent another evil spirit to torment Saul (1Sa 16:14).

4. He put a lying spirit into the mouths of all his prophets (1Ki 22:22-23).

5. He admitted creating disaster ("evil" in the KJV) (Isa 45:7). [See also Amos 3:6.]

6. He permitted people to have "statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by" (Eze 20:25).

7. He sent certain people a powerful delusion so that they would believe a lie (2Th 2:11).

God also apparently ordered stealing by having the Israelites plunder the Egyptians (Ex 3:22). He ordered the plundering of cities far away from Israel and the enslavement of their people (Dt 20:10-14). [The seven neighboring tribes were to be dealt with still more harshly, as indicated above.] He also ordered 32,000 female virgins to be taken as war plunder (half to go to the soldiers and half to the people) and 32 of them to be for himself (Nu 31:18-40). All of this is highly unethical, to say the least.

Even Biblical doctrines are unethical. A good case could be made that Adam and Eve were victims of entrapment and did not deserve their punishment. And the idea that children are born into the world somehow inheriting Adam and Eve's sin also implies an injustice. As for Jesus's alleged sacrifice for humanity, that too seems unethical. If people deserve a certain punishment, then they ought to receive it. That is what justice is. To knowingly punish the innocent is always morally repugnant. Furthermore, the exclusivist threat of "accept Christ or else be damned for eternity" is unethical. People ought to be provided some way of "opting out" of the entire system. I would say that the most unethical Biblical doctrine of all is that of eternal damnation. [23] It is hard to understand how anyone who interprets the Bible to say that God keeps people alive for purposes of eternal torment, instead of simply annihilating them, could also suggest premise (8) of the Argument from the Bible. And yet there are such.

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrowhawke's post was pretty long, I'll respond to it later. Meanwhile, I thought I would point out some of the things god did in the OT that turned me off to him.

Let me know what you think.

Photo of Theodore "Ted" Michael Drange (1934â€â€)


guitarman,

What you copypasta'd was part of an article entitled "The Argument From the Bible" (1996) by Professor Theodore Drange of West Virginia University where he taught from 1966 - 2001. Further, you did so without giving the author credit. They are not your words at all. Even the comments you posted were his, not yours. I quoted you above - this is the only part that you wrote (as far as I could tell).

You've asked me to let you know what I think, yes? I think that the two verses that turnorburn quoted in post #2 were NOT random. I think your objection about simply quoting verses may have been valid but with your recent post, your objection, motives and sincerity are called into question.

Hopefully all parties to this discussion can resolve this. I think that we cannot have a meaningful conversation with a copypasta, that doesn't mean you can't bring up arguments that you learned, of course, but to keep the discussion meaningful please post your comments only and then supplement from quoted references as needed. That's the way this thread started, yes?
_________________________________________________________
The readers digest version of my post is:

• The question, "Did Jesus contradict the OT?" is valid, pertinent and timely. Angels desire to look into these things.[/*:m:1dtsbsmv]
• Our Father God is rightly called "I AM who I AM, that which my children need me to be"[/*:m:1dtsbsmv]
• The children of Jacob didn't know Him and were not like him - they were stiff-necked, and they sought to please their bellies and looked at their worldly needs only; even while they were being delivered, even while their prayers were being answered.[/*:m:1dtsbsmv]
• It got so bad that even after 40 years of wandering they were ready to stone Moses who brought their complaint to the Lord.[/*:m:1dtsbsmv]
• Our Mighty God met the needs of His children after they had been slaves in Egypt for more than 400 years. Even the needs they didn't admit to. They were orphans, He became their Dad.[/*:m:1dtsbsmv]
• Even after Moses died, the Lord continued to teach (as seen in Judges chapter 3)[/*:m:1dtsbsmv]
• I truncated the rest of the Old Testament by giving the Names of God - showing His nature and His response to our need.[/*:m:1dtsbsmv]

_________________________________________________________
The complication was the contrast between MAN and God - not between God and His only begotten son. It's the same "complication" that existed during the time of Christ and the same "complication" today.

Even if that is your situation: if your god is your belly, your glory is your shame, your mind is set on earthly things - know this: That is the exact situation that all of God's children start from. You may have come here with different expectations but I don't consider you an enemy, guitarman - rather I consider you a "stranger" in my gate. God commanded the children of Israel to treat strangers kindly, remembering that they too were strangers while they were in Egypt. You never know, maybe God brought you here for a reason? Please consider the possibility during your stay here. I've not been a member of Christian Forums for long but I'm proud to be counted as a "friend" here.

I'll look forward to hearing your reply to my full post (above) later after you get a chance to read (study?) it. Or, if handy posts you may skip the reply to mine and just walk with her (that would be my choice if I were you) :yes

 

[guitarman]

Sparrowhawke wrote:

guitarman,

What you copypasta'd was part of an article entitled "The Argument From the Bible" (1996) by Professor Theodore Drange of West Virginia University where he taught from 1966 - 2001. Further, you did so without giving the author credit. They are not your words at all. Even the comments you posted were his, not yours. I quoted you above - this is the only part that you wrote (as far as I could tell).

You've asked me to let you know what I think, yes? I think that the two verses that turnorburn quoted in post #2 were NOT random. I think your objection about simply quoting verses may have been valid but with your recent post, your objection, motives and sincerity are called into question.

Man you christians get your hackles up real easy. I didn't quote Drange because most of the time you guys will attack the man instead of the argument, instead you attacked me. If you would have asked, I would have told you right away that I didn't come up with that argument, I'm not that smart or deceitful. I don't see how my objection, motives and sincerity could be called into question. Handy and I had been discussing why I thought the god of the OT was more vengeful than loving. I just wanted to float a few ideas out there about why I thought the god of the OT was angry and judgemental by citing examples that someone already put together, it's called an appeal to authority.

I notice that you didn't respond to the argument but instead chose to attack me. If you're going to get mad at me every time I copypaste someone else's arguments, then this discussion is probably going to be worthless. What's wrong with using someone else's arguments? Christians do it all the time when they cite the bible. If it makes you feel better, I will cite everything I write that's not mine. Although the main point should be the argument and not the person who wrote it, I'll list my sources if it bothers you so much.

Your response to my post is a good example of why many non-believers and some who might be on the fence get chased off from these sites, merely because they came to ask hard questions and get honest answers. I've noticed that no matter how polite I am, if a believer feels himself to be backed into a corner, the ad hominem attacks come pretty quick, whether against me or the person who originally made the argument. That's fine, I have thick skin and I can handle it. It's just disappointing.

To be honest with you, most of your post didn't seem to apply to what handy and I were talking about. What do the different names of god have to to with whether or not jesus contradicted the bible? It seems like you copypasted something from a different thread. The examples you cited from the OT were the times when god was good to the Israelites. But what about the times when god turned away from them, or raised his hand against them? That's what all the examples on the list that I posted above were about. If that was too many, then maybe I'll just give you one and you can justfy to me how it shows god's love.

Numbers 31
Vengeance on the Midianites
1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
3 So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them
7 They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man.
9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armyâ€â€the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredsâ€â€who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

It sounds like to me god is sanctioning murder, rape, enslavement, and child abuse. That doesn't sound too loving to me, at least as far as the Midianites were concerned. And here I thought "that god so loved the world." (BTW, I have to thank Mark D. Ball for the above passage so sparrowhawke won't get all fired up.)

 

[handy]

If you guys don’t mind, for now I’d like to simply concentrate on the question of whether or not the God of the OT is one and the same as Jesus who supposedly loves the whole world enough to give up His live for them.

As far as the “lists†of God’s supposed injustices, I will gladly concede the point that God isn’t a nice guy. God never claims to be a nice guy. As C.S. Lewis put it, He isn’t a tame lion. Whether or not His commands to Moses in regards to the Midianites are just is a matter of opinion. As Drange put it, “It is hard to find anything in the Bible that stands out as ethically noble from our point of view today.†However, it’s easy to armchair quarterback from 3300 years in the future in a completely different cultural context. Since I wasn’t the one who placed stars in the heavens and I didn’t command the ocean to stop where it did, I’m not going to second-guess God’s notion of justice in the matter of the Midianites. Drange didn’t either for that matter, and who is he to determine that our ways are “right†and the vengeance that God wreaked against the Midianites 3300 years ago was “wrong� Yes, he is a lettered man of philosophy. I’m an Idaho housewife and neither one of us has the capacity to rightly judge an event that took place that far back in time and in a totally different cultural context.

But, are events such as the slaughter of the Midianites, and the rest of the points that atheists and agnostics like to throw in the teeth of Christians in character with Jesus Christ Himself? That is the question of the OP and the one I’d like to study. If y’all want to squabble over which of God’s commandments in the OT are the worst or the most justifiable, go ahead, but I doubt if it would be a fruitful discussion.

In order to study this with any kind of clarity, it would be helpful to look at different sides to the issue.

A: Is Jesus one and the same as the God of the OT?

B: If so, why did He change from being so vengeful and wrathful in the OT, to being loving and forgiving in the New Testament?

Perhaps the end of this study will not be to bring one to accepting the God of the OT with humility but rather to wind up hating Jesus as much as one hates the God of the OT. Although that would be sad, it would nonetheless at least be logical. Folks who try to make out that the OT God is horrible but want to admire Jesus as being a paragon of love and wise philosophy are kidding themselves. You can’t have one without the other, unless one is making the mistake of viewing Jesus as some kind of cafeteria of philosophy that one can pick and choose what and what not to accept about Him.

Naturally I would hope that the end of the study would result in folks seeing that God is a God of love, that His punishments are just and that His mercies are great. But, that’s not up to me, that is between each person and God.

So, is Jesus one and the same as the God of the OT?

I ask this question first because if He isn’t, then the discussion ends. If He is, then it opens up to the next question of why our loving Jesus was so harsh with the Israelites and worse with those who weren’t of Israel.

Now, at this point the topic could get very tricky because there will be those who will want to argue that Jesus isn’t God at all. I will ask that those responses be directed to a different thread. It’s the firmly held conviction of this board that Jesus is God the Son and the God of the OT. All theological comments to the contrary can be put on a different thread and I’ll go whining to the moderators in a heartbeat if anyone tries to derail the discussion at hand with anti-Trinitarian arguments.

So, again, is Jesus the God of the OT? Is it within the known character of Jesus Christ to be a party to the violence and the vengeance in the OT?

In the New Testament we get a picture of Who Jesus is by what He did and said Himself and what other’s, who walked with Him for three years or were called by Him in an unmistakable manner say about Him. We have the four Gospels and the letters written by the Apostles, the letter to the Hebrews and the book of Revelations which all paint a picture of Who Christ is.

The most familiar form of Jesus is the loving and sacrificing God who gave Himself up for all mankind. But that seems to be contradictory to the God of the OT.

The thing is, if Jesus is God, then He is the One whom the Bible teaches is to hand out vengeance and wrath. Romans 12:19 states, “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.â€Â

Think of the kinds of oppressive governments that have risen to power over the ages. Of them we are told that government is an avenger of God to bring wrath upon evildoers.

In Revelations we see all kinds of wraths poured out upon the entire earth. What happened in the OT to Israel and it’s neighbors will be nothing compared with what is to happen on a world wide basis.

Even in the New Testament, we see that God is both wrathful and vengeful.

Is Jesus this God?

John chapter 1 tells us of Jesus that He is the Word and that the Word was with God and the Word was God in creation, and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The writer to the Hebrew says,

Hebrews 1 8But of the Son He says,
"YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,
AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
9"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."
10And,
"YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH,
AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
11THEY WILL PERISH, BUT YOU REMAIN;
AND THEY ALL WILL BECOME OLD LIKE A GARMENT,
12AND LIKE A MANTLE YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP;
LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED
BUT YOU ARE THE SAME,
AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END."

This is enough to establish that the New Testament does equate Jesus with the God of the OT.
This post is more than long now. I’ll let y’all read through and respond. Then after we’ve discussed this we can look further into the character of Jesus as we see Him in the Gospels.

Once we have established, at least for the purposes of this discussion that the Bible does teach that Jesus is the God of both the Old and New Testaments, we can then delve into the specifics of why the God who is "the same yesterday, today and tomorrow" can be the same God who deals out wrath in the Old Testament and then sacrifices Himself out of love in the New.

 

[Rankx]

No he didn't contradict the OT. We just need to understand more. Jesus did not come to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill them. One of the major areas of apparent contradiction is the laws that were given. However, we have to take into consideration that the nation of Israel in the wilderness was a spiritual nation and also a civil nation. Moses was president and priest. There were many laws given to govern israel as a civil nation to Moses. Laws about stonning a woman caught in adultery to death was a civil law. Laws that dealt with specific punishment for sins were civil laws. Civil laws can be changed at anytime based on circumstances. At the time of Jesus Israel was ruled by Rome and operated under the civil laws of Rome. The civil laws for Carlifornia don't apply in England. There were specific laws for the children of Israel when Moses, Joshua and others were both their priest and king. Then there were also the laws regarding special ceremonies and ordinances. These ceremonies and ordinances all pointed to the work of justification and salvation that Christ was to do when he came. Jesus' body was the true unleaven bread in the feast of unleaven bread. Jesus was the true passover lamb in the passover. These laws which gave instruction about the time of these ordinances, what was to be offered and so forth would have been nullified by the death of Christ on the cross, as well as the ceremonies and ordinances that came by them.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

The shadow that the law had were those ceremonies and ordinances. The 10 commandments however, still stand for us today because they were given to give a knowledge of sin. Transgressing the commandments means that you have sinned. That does not change throughout the passage of time because God's morality does not change throughout the passage of time.

 

[Sparkey]

guitarman,

I did not defame you, did not call you names, was not angry in the slightest when I posted and am not angry now. I understand why you might not like what I posted but there was no liable, no slander, nor any type of character assignation directed either at you or at Professor Ted Drange. You may note that I was careful to avoid the word "plagiarism" and instead made statements of truth only. I notice you didn't accuse me of slander, but had you done so, the truth is a robust defense even in our courts of law.

Let's go back to what YOU actually wrote, please. After criticizing me for the length of my post you went ahead and posted 1,138 words (where only 38 were your own). Your last words were, "Please let me know what you think." If you don't want to know what I think, please don't ask. If you do ask - then don't complain when I respond honestly. I've not asked for your opinion of me but you have certainly given me an earful. I would apologize to you for my part in having made you feel unwelcome - if in fact I did that. There is a difference between a person and their actions - it was your tactics, not you, that I object to.

~Sparhawk

 

[guitarman]

Handy wrote:

As far as the “lists†of God’s supposed injustices, I will gladly concede the point that God isn’t a nice guy. God never claims to be a nice guy. As C.S. Lewis put it, He isn’t a tame lion. Whether or not His commands to Moses in regards to the Midianites are just is a matter of opinion. As Drange put it, “It is hard to find anything in the Bible that stands out as ethically noble from our point of view today.†However, it’s easy to armchair quarterback from 3300 years in the future in a completely different cultural context. Since I wasn’t the one who placed stars in the heavens and I didn’t command the ocean to stop where it did, I’m not going to second-guess God’s notion of justice in the matter of the Midianites. Drange didn’t either for that matter, and who is he to determine that our ways are “right†and the vengeance that God wreaked against the Midianites 3300 years ago was “wrong� Yes, he is a lettered man of philosophy. I’m an Idaho housewife and neither one of us has the capacity to rightly judge an event that took place that far back in time and in a totally different cultural context.

I was hoping you would come up with something better than the "god's ways are mysterious" argument. It seems like every time something unethical or tricky in the bible comes up, that's the argument I hear. That's not a valid argument. That would be like saying, "Well, this guy raped and murdered a child, but he won't tell us why he did it, so maybe he was justified." When the argument is put that way, it sounds rediculous. The same standard should apply to god. Since I assume everyone here believes that we get our morality from god, shouldn't god be setting the standard for us? If you took some of the things that god does in the bible and had a person do them, we would call that person a criminal and a monster and rightly so. If god is so great to hand down moral laws to us, shouldn't he be exptected to follow those same laws?

As far as not being able to judge an event as "right" or "wrong" that happened far back in time and in a totally different cultural context, that's just moral relativism. If something is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong in all places and in all times? I think we can all agree that Hitler was an evil man and that everything that he and the nazis did was evil and wrong. Would it make a difference if he did these things 60 or 6000 years ago? What you're saying is if rape and murder were okay 3000 years ago, who are we to judge. If you think slavery is wrong now, then was it wrong before the civil war? Did the notion of slavery somehow change, or was it always wrong? All you're doing is making yourself feel better by not judging the people or god in the bible. If we can't learn from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them.

In answer to your question, I know that christians believe that jesus and god are one in the same, so I'll agree to that for the sake of discussion.

 

[guitarman]

Rankx wrote:

However, we have to take into consideration that the nation of Israel in the wilderness was a spiritual nation and also a civil nation. Moses was president and priest. There were many laws given to govern israel as a civil nation to Moses. Laws about stonning a woman caught in adultery to death was a civil law. Laws that dealt with specific punishment for sins were civil laws. Civil laws can be changed at anytime based on circumstances. At the time of Jesus Israel was ruled by Rome and operated under the civil laws of Rome. The civil laws for Carlifornia don't apply in England. There were specific laws for the children of Israel when Moses, Joshua and others were both their priest and king. Then there were also the laws regarding special ceremonies and ordinances.

Israel was a spritual and civil nation: it's known as a theocracy. Their civil laws were given to them by god, therefore god is responsible for them. God told the Israelites to stone adulterous women and homosexuals and witches. He laid out the specific punishments for specific sins. God doesn't say anywhere in the OT that it's ok to change his laws, in fact he has some pretty stern warnings against it. It would be one thing if the laws in the OT were made up by the Israelites but they weren't. God is recognized as the ultimate authority in the bible, so he ultimately bears the responsibility for what is in it.

 

[mondar]

Where does the Bible teach slavery?

 

[wavy]

Where does the Bible teach slavery?

I don't know what you mean by 'teach', but I said 'sanction'. In other words, God regulated it. He made provision for it in his good, holy, and spiritual law (Romans vii.14). So obviously he did not consider it wrong.

The only significant prohibitory enactments he gave concerning slavery were that (surprise, surprise) Hebrew slaves couldn't be treated harshly and that they had to be freed every seventh year, or at the death of the high priest or at Jubilee.

Gentile slaves on the other hand receive no such sanction. In fact, God says they can be made slaves forever. See Leviticus xxv.44-46.

This of course doesn't sound like the command of a morally perfect higher being, but the legislation of an ancient culture of primitive, militantly jingoistic racists!

Thanks,
E.L.B.

 

[Sparkey]

Where does the Bible teach slavery?

Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

We are to be servants (slaves) to Christ.

The Word of Truth also states if one is able to free themselves from the slavery of men, they should. I would think this covers all indentured service including being slaves to Visa® and Master Card®. If any would like to open a new thread to discuss slavery (or modern economic slavery) I'm willing to contribute.

~Sparrowhawke